• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trogluddite

  1. How much are you charging? I'll get back to you...
  2. ^^ Don't disagree in the least, Bi. And arguably, everyone who hikes any serious amount of time should probably take both the American Red Cross basic first aid course and a first aid course oriented on wilderness injuries. (Speaking as the hiker with the broken arm), you don't want to be the group that's just had a fellow hiker break an arm and have everyone else standing around looking panicked.
  3. ^^ Cat, In all seriousness, the questions you're asking shouldn't be answered (in a legal sense) on a blog. The question of what is required will depend upon the entity (private, state, Federal, tribal) that owns the land. The question of how few or how many people in an organized, sponsored group will depend on the liability insurance policy of the organizing group. The questions of revocation for a medical professional would depend on the licensing entity in each state. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state with a high degree of confidence is that not a single person here is qualified to answer all of those questions.
  4. Here is another site, although they don't have a sooty grouse recording.
  5. The SSR’s Ohio color data (1st column) with my NH/ME/eastern Canada color data (2nd column) Ohio NH/ME/Can (east) Total 141 Total 126 White/Grey/Yellow 18 (13%) 7 (5.5%)(Gray only) Black 21 (15%) 18 (14%) Brown 35 (25%) 10 (8%) Dark Brown 14 (10%) 7 (5.5%) “Dark” 19 (13%) 8 (6.5%) Cinnamon 3 ( 2%) 3 (2.5%) No color provided 31 (22%) 73 (58%)
  6. Hi Bobby, Thought I’d read through this thread and see how data from New Hampshire, Maine, and eastern Canada (126 possible encounters reported) stacked up against some of the SSR stats. Of course, the SSR and my database use different things, so there are some “apples-to-oranges” comparisons here. I first looked at moon phase data. 32 encounters, or roughly 25% of the total, provided either a definite description of the moon phase or enough information to determine same. I’ve now divided up each lunar cycle into 10 periods three days in length (for those who need to visualize this, see a lunar calendar for October 2016, which started and ended on a new moon). These 32 encounters occurred: 3 - the night of the new moon, + 2 nights after the new moon 7 - waxing crescent moon (3-5 nights after the new moon) 2 - waxing gibbous moon (9-11 nights after the new moon) 4 - the last three days before the full moon 4 - the night of the full moon and two nights afterwards 3 - Nights 3-5 after the full moon 3 - Two nights before, and the night of, the quarter moon 4 - three nights after the waning quarter moon 2 - the last three nights before the next new moon. I did not realize this until just now, but fully 50% of encounters where the moon phase can be identified occurred on the darkest 12 nights of the lunar cycle. 42 encounters involved some type of vocalization; of these, 22 (or just over ½) involved an encounter where the witness heard something, but did not see anything. Of those 22 encounters, only 6 are from the fall; the easy majority (9) are from the summer months. However, 18 of 22, or 82%, are during dusk through dawn. Just going across the board for this area (not breaking it out seasonally), 36 (or 29%) of the encounters occurred when the witness was traveling (driving, walking, biking) in some way along a road. These encounters are split 50/50 between daylight hours and dusk-dawn. I’ll look at, and add, some more stats later.
  7. Swaying back to Hiflier's topic (not that the other stuff isn't interesting), how far does Bigfoot travel? First observation – there have been possible encounters in the northeast United States and eastern Canada since at least 1650. However, when broken out by the time frames I use and map (pre-1900, 1900-1959, and then by decades) , the encounters always peter out going into New Hampshire, Maine, and eastern Canada. In other words, no matter how many encounters there are in that area, they are tailing off from the rest of New England and Pennsylvania to the south. Obviously, some of this has to do with the lower number of humans in this area. However, I would also suggest that the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes provide a significant barrier to travel that affects the number of encounters. (NOTE f/those newcomers - in addition to my database, I independently plot each encounter on Google Earth.) Second observation, while agreeing w/Bobby O’s thoughts on the folly of trying to track “individual” Bigfoot based on reported height/hair color/etc., I believe (and I know Bobby does) that value remains in looking at this information. For example, out of 163 Bigfoot encounters reported from New Hampshire north into eastern Canada, nine (9) were described as gray, or with some gray. To me, the temporal distribution of these are interesting. It is: 1930s – 1951 – 1979 – 1987 – 1997 – 2004 – 2006 x2 – 2007 Is this indicative of older and weaker individuals being forced from the better feeding grounds? Last observation for now. While I haven’t started vetting the New Hampshire-Maine-eastern Canada data for patterns, I’ve noted in other threads that, at least in the northeast, there is a pattern of encounters in one area followed by a lull followed by a new group years later in a new, distant area. This is suggestive of checkerboard sustenance farming practice that I understand is used by aboriginal groups in the South American rain-forest and other areas. This would make sense if a family group used up an area, relocated outside of the northeast, and then moved back years later. Not sure if its instinct or planned at a rudimentary level, but I believe two things. First, it makes biological sense. Second, it is arguably not logical that hoaxers fabricating encounters or random miss-identifications of bear, elk, and moose would magically fall outside of a normal random distribution.
  8. I will defer to others as to your opinion on whether this is interesting or not. Out of 985 Bigfoot encounters in the northeast and eastern Canada, 42 involve encounters with a juvenile either alone or accompanied. There is a single encounter with what may have been a pregnant Bigfoot (shortest of three, belly visibly distended) which occurred in January. Beyond that, no juvenile Bigfoot has ever been encountered in the winter months (Dec - Feb). There are no credible reports of an infant Bigfoot being seen at any time. In the spring (Mar - May), juveniles are more likely to be encountered w/an adult (8 encounters) than on their own (4 encounters). In the summer (Jun - Aug), juveniles were accompanied by adults 7 times, and encountered on their own 11 times. In the fall (Sep - Nov), juveniles are again more likely to be encountered with an adult (9 encounters) than on their own (7 encounters). This strikes me as having a relatively straightforward biological explanation. (Edited to add paragraph breaks for clarity)
  9. Presumably, the legal team for Animal Planet dotted those t's and crossed those i's before letting the Finding Bigfoot crew step on a plane to wherever they were filming. I'm relatively confident that the in-house corporate lawyers or any entertainment law firms that Animal Planet hired would be familiar with all of the ins and outs of the permitting process. Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to BFRO expeditions but hopefully they know about this and comply. The issue wouldn't be whether the group was "research oriented," it would be whether the applicant was a for profit or not for profit entity, as defined by state and Federal law. So, if what I've heard is true about some organizations being incorporated or established as any for profit entity, it wouldn't matter if they were taking the money to do research. If they are properly organized, registered, and functioning as a not for profit entity, then they may get a break on the fees.
  10. Arrived in North America 100,000 years earlier than previously believed, but only got to Central and South America in the last 20,000 years due to traffic in LA, probably...
  11. My $0.02, I clearly heard wood-on-wood knocks in both files. Not human hammering, or distant car doors, or gunfire (no echo). It makes me think of a shillelagh, which can serve as a modest walking stick, a night stick for probing around in tangles and such, or a club to knock some lout over the head with. What's problematic is that there are so few encounters where a Bigfoot is seen with a club or stick. I am approaching 1,000 reports and I'm fairly confident that the number of encounters in which a Bigfoot is seen, shillelagh in hand, is less than 20. That being said, maybe it doesn't carry it's club around all the time. You prepare for the mission you're going on. If you're foraging roots and berries, you don't need a club. If you're travelling by yourself from point A to point B, you don't need a club to communicate. If you're solo hunting, all you need to do is bushwhack a deer and wring it's neck, no club needed. But a Bigfoot that's hunting or traveling with a group, or serving as the outer ring of security would know it's mission and - since it knows it may need to communicate - grab a stick before moving out.
  12. Here's a possible interesting twist on this question. There have been some well-publicized hoaxes and/or Bigfoot researchers stepping in the Bigfoot droppings (angel DNA, anyone?). In addition, some aspects of how the Finding Bigfoot show is produced might create a negative, rather than positive, perception of the question of whether Bigfoot exists or not. So the question. In three areas where I recently finalized (for now) my data - New Hampshire, Maine, and northeastern Canada - there is an arc of increasing sightings through the 2000s, then a steep drop-off of reported sightings in the 2010s. It's now getting late in this decade. Is the drop off of reported encounters a sign of fewer Bigfoot or the impact of hoaxes and bad PR?
  13. Good point to reinforce occasionally.
  14. ^ Ok, thanks. Just to be clear (as others may be seeing something else), the only thing I saw was the face on the rock. That's what looks photo-shopped, somehow, to me - like a face was placed on a rock with similar coloring.
  15. ^ Just curious, that's photo-shopped in, right?
  16. Art, there's no resemblance to Patty as Patty wasn't a blonde - oh wait, you mean the dark shadowing area behind McGyver and the blonde with the big hair? ;-)
  17. Shadow, SWWASAS, I don't doubt that the little ones hitch a ride. The encounters of young ones are just so few and far between. I just finished plugging some more encounters in, so since I posted those numbers, I'm up to 977 encounters. Encounters w/juveniles make up 4-5% of the reported encounters and encounters with an infant are literally 1 in 1,000. Just thought to look up something. Interestingly, only 9 encounters involve a female, with or without a juvenile, that's not accompanied by a male. When I broaden to include females encountered with males, it goes up to 20 encounters. So seeing a clearly identifiable female is rarer than encountering a juvenile. Of course, if witnesses would just get closer and check out the plumbing, I wouldn't have 803 reports where the gender field is blank.
  18. I can see it now. There you are, sitting on the bench in the local jail with all the (excuse the language, but its a quote) mean, nasty, ugly looking people who are mother rapers, father stabbers, father rapers, and they look at you and say, "what are you in for?" And you go, "Litterin..." and they all move away from you on the bench until you add, "And felony texting..." and they will all move back next to you on the bench. Not to make light of reckless driving, but there are already laws on the books. Felony texting charges will likely just be used to extort some extra money or a better guilty plea from poorly represented or unrepresented defendants.
  19. Well, I'm partial to the theory that like all wild animals, the juveniles know to freeze when danger is about. I'm sure others have had this experience, but my dog (a lab with all natural instincts lost to domestication) and I walked w/in 2 feet of a fawn that just stayed hunkered down in the tall grass. The magic database tells us the following: Out of 960 encounters, 43 (credible) encounters involve a juvenile or infant bigfoot. Only once was an obvious infant encountered; when it was it was accompanied by an adult. In nineteen encounters, juveniles are spotted in the company of adults. In these cases, the presumed young range in height from 3 to 5-6 feet. And while I haven't looked them all up for this post, I'm pretty sure that in all of them, the young bigfoot is walking on its own - i.e., not being carried, or clinging to the back, like an infant would be. Twenty-three times, presumed juveniles are encountered on their own, or at least without a visible adult nearby. Where height is reported, they range in height from 3 feet (your typical tow-headed kid?) to 6-7 feet (teenagers?). So - have the babies and the nursery well off the beaten track, stay very quiet and reclusive while you have an infant, then start going into "normal" mode once the infants reach the age/size where they're semi-capable?
  20. Funny. In my feed, this thread shows up right above the one for Grandpa's old-timey 1960s photos of bigfoot. As someone who was a young whipper-snapper in the 1960s, I'm a bit aghast that the decade is now one inhabited solely by "grandpas."
  21. Answering the question by not answering the question. Taking 85 reports which occurred in Maine and the environs of Canada immediately adjacent thereto (i.e., those parts of Canada South/East of the St. Lawrence Seaway) that include information about the season, 21 occurred from December through February. 9 occurred from March through May, although none actually occurred in March. 32 occurred from June through August. The remaining 23 occurred from September through November. That would seem to suggest a seasonal pattern where Bigfoot enter the area in the summer, remain through the fall, and start leaving in the winter, with perhaps a straggler or two who hangs in there through the spring until vegetation comes back. As an aside, once again I'm amazed at how these hoaxes, misinterpretations, and false stories are carefully lined up by the controlling conspiracy in the sky to create what looks like behavior one would expect from a living breathing creature.
  22. I took out the photo to save space, but I believe that photo is misleading. I know we're not the idyllic open skies of out west, were you can walk (drive?) for days and not see another person, but there are plenty of places where you can go and get lots of space and darkness in the east. The other factor is human activity. My outdoor lights stay on all night, but at 3:00 AM, bigfoot could walk up to the front door, moon the house, and be gone without being seen. I'm willing to bet that I could (back in my younger years) infiltrate or exfiltrate 85 % of the suburbs and rural areas if I moved out during the late night.
  23. I'm glad you qualified that ... perhaps its unfair, but some of the people who have written books claiming to be habituators have given the group a bad name. I agree that there are inherent problems in trying to figure out movement patterns from just using the reports, but I think that there is some value in it. (I know that's self-serving.) For example, even with all the reports, you can find groups of encounters defined by area and time that just present themselves, without manipulation of the data to make them appear.
  24. Half (or 3/4s?) of the board may not have any idea of what you are talking about. Might as well make a poster describing these, mimeograph it, then have runners distribute them.
  25. On the subject of the tech guys on the forum, I appreciate the new staff POC block in the header. Now that it's there, I'll probably need it, but what the heck, it's a good improvement. Anything I cipher out with my spreadsheets and slide rules and stubby pencils, I post somewhere here. Someday I'll make an e-book of it all and charge a modest fee, but most of it will show up here first. Should I ever find clear and compelling evidence, or even "maybe-this-is-something" evidence, I'd likely share it here first before sending it in to someone with a tv show. This is a good group that will vet everything without having a pre-ordained conclusion.